Re Vallance, and all other such experts. The problem is that they gain the high level of skills and knowledge by working in a specific industry, and tend to get rewarded by share options, or just buy into the company that employs them.

Then they rally to the nations cause as an expert and become national advisers: maybe for a fee, maybe not. So rather than having their student loan paid off, the whingers out there complain that they have this conflict of interest. What do you want him to do about it?

He has the skills the government want to tap into... should he be made to jettison part of his pension fund?

Being a shareholder doesn't necessarily give any decision making power. That comes with executive directorship. If he is an executive director then both he and the company will be obliged by company law and stock exchange rules to manage the inherent conflict and potential for insider trading.

Being influential in government decision making and awarding of contracts to a company he has a material interest (is it material, probably not) in should be similarly controlled. He's not just going to be able to make such decisions himself - indeed I imagine there are specific controls to prevent it.

His views could influence the decision making, but what do you want a vaccine or just to pick holes?